Re: Study Hall.

sunbern Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:10 am

hehehehe,yeah I guess I should read before I post ,just put that last piece on for entertainment value... I certainly didn't take it in ,hard facts are like rocking horse poo in this subject sometimes we need a bit of light relief dontcha think ?

Del. Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:02 am

the idiot (Sitchin) who started all this BS. wrote:

Well Graham Hancock certainly got torn to pieces in that link you put up Jim,

''Quote''
Garbage in Garbage out
Never mind the known cultural context, just bamboozle the reader with unfamiliar terms.
His impression that the Akapana is somehow “some kind of arcane ‘device’ or machine” is no more than that: it is an elaborately constructed pyramid, typical of the region, with drains presumably to remove liquids. We are experiencing another of those innuendoes that pepper the book. Without actually claiming anything positive, Hancock is insinuating in our minds that the Akapana is somehow connected with a high technology.
Hancock remains painfully unaware of the Garbage in, Garbage out maxim.
without having the thought “elephant” planted in the mind first, one simply wouldn’t see them. This is probably an indication that they aren’t there at all.

And I thought Hancock was up there with the greats......Me thinks not now.

**Jim** Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:32 am

The overall picture is no different than the picture presented to the people by the religious elite. The ancients had a valid excuse regarding mental failure - there was no hard data for them to fall back on. We, on the other hand, CAN get answers to questions ... but, for the most part, it doesn't happen. How long has this subject been around? How far have we gotten? Yeah, "the truth is out there" - but at the rate we're going, we'll never find it. dunno

This is why I stay within the parameters of my experiences ... I can't a hole in the approach, two "shrinks" couldn't find a hole in ME, and Dr Davis had nothing negative to say. So I'm stuck with this until someone finds a "problem" d'oh

(I need a dark beer chuckle

)

sunbern Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:08 pm

what footwork ? we don't get a say in the belief process it either happens or it doesn't,we all believe and we can say why ,did any of you do any legwork to get that answer ? plenty ,yes to find our origins ( and the masses of research you have put in jim ) but the` moment`when our belief started was not of our doing more I would say our mindset has allowed us to` import` the belief and remove all doubt,i think it is at that moment our minds become receptive and things start to happen at a faster rate it seems to me ...

**Jim** Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:02 pm

It's humor ... kinda like this one ... chuckle

sunbern Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:29 pm

well put ,please don't get despondent ... Question

i so wish you could get a bit more help on this ,i really do ,we are following different avenues but our destination is the same ...........

**Jim** Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:57 pm

Umm ... you could try pointed "questions" ... which includes the idea of a "quest" chuckle

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:50 am

hehehehehe ok point taken ,but WE are here for better or worse , ok no more triviality ,constructivism or bust...... have you tried contacting Andrew Collins his archaeology IS cutting edge and is on our side so to speak ,I would like to know the significance of all those carved animals at Gobekli tepe ,think I will try asking him what his thoughts are on them ...

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:16 am

See, I think before you do that you should go on a quest to see what's out there regarding Collins and people who are into debunking pseudo-archaeology. Like this reference:

The current edition of American Antiquity (vol. 80, no. 3) contains a section devoted to pseudo-archaeology, and it features some terrific reviews of fringe history books familiar to regular readers of this blog. I’m not sure exactly when the July number of the journal will hit your local library, but when it does, you should check out some of the interesting pieces examining works by pseudo-archaeological writers like Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Andrew Collins, Philip Coppens, and more.
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/american-antiquity-features-special-section-reviewing-pseudo-archaeology
dunno

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:20 am

7/18/2015 23:44:23

quote
Einstein said something like. ..progress comes not from the accumulation of facts, but from the daring speculation based upon those facts...These"pseudo science" researchers make brilliant, daring speculations based on the meager available evidence. The "academic" reviewers deal only with what can be "proven" now, with fact based evidence.
Seems their approach to evaluating these alternative theories may be flawed from the get go, as they take on the preconceived role of debunker end quote
I tend to go with this guys flow ( taken from the above link),it's fine to just go with known facts but if you ask me it's the mainstream archaeologists that are blinkered in their approach.. sometimes I would just like to see a bit more common ground ,obviously some `pseudo archaeologists are stretching the truth to the point of downright lies ( which gets a bad name for all ) but that next handhold is sometimes well worth reaching for when you are climbing the cliff in the dark .....

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:56 am

I agree - as I do the same thing when there is no data to say one way or the other. But these ideas are on their own table in my head, and I know there may be more to the picture; case in point, what I think about the Long Count. I had a nice phone discussion with that Mayan studies PhD, and after all was said and done, there simply is no information to say who created it. My conclusions are based on the fact the overall picture that includes Orion, Virgo (twice), and the galactic center, are the exact constellations in my picture - wtf are doing in the long count? Then, from a picture that begins C 95,000 BC, these constellations do not fall into sync until the superwave event C 45,000 BC (about the time of the great leap forward), and run until 2012. After that, again they go out of sync.

So - "...progress comes not from the accumulation of facts, but from the daring speculation based upon those facts..." is right - that's creative thinking, however, those conclusions must be verified. Sometimes, it can't be done ... eventually, maybe, it will. Until that time comes, it has to be presented as an "as close as we can get thus far" picture, and NOT as hard data final conclusions. Hence the line - prove me wrong - because I know I am NOT the person who should be doing this, and maybe I missed something.

This entire picture is the exact way the religious elite controlled the people - those people had NO data to prove anyone wrong - we do - we're just not used to "looking it up" to see where the errors are, if indeed there are errors. Look at history - all we see are people BEING TOLD what to believe, and kept in a state of ignorance so they remain mentally controlled. Time to reverse the picture me thinks. whistle

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:19 am

sure is ,I have just sent Collins an e mail,hopefully a reply will be forthcoming ...trouble with the mainstream academic approach it seems ,there is absolutely no room for speculative thought processes so I imagine the so called "pseudo scientists " will never have meaningfull conversation with front line archaeologists ,kinda takes the romance out of the subject I think....rip Indiana jones ..

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:31 am

It's as bad to be too logical as it is to be too creative ... the two approaches should work together as a team, but hard data has to make the final decision. Belief in religion is the perfect example ... is there a god? Hard data says no ... prove me wrong. I don't have a problem with being wrong, I don't have beliefs - I have a pile of information - wanna go through it? dunno

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:18 pm

you should float that last post on facebook or twitter jim we'd never hear from you again Exclamation

second thoughts my evenings would be dull without you around cheers

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:43 pm

You want to see what it's like dealing with people? I dropped in this site 2 days ago to start a discussion - suddenly, I was no longer able to post a full long statement with links. This site is connected to GLP, who has gone down the tubes regarding rational thought, and just bans anyone for any reason (do a search for posts with GLP in it statement). You can't click on anything at GLP without getting a "statement" page to load first.

Anyway, I got NO reply as to what was going on, but the entire thread wound up in their hands and went where THEY wanted it to go.

http://www.givemegossip.com/forum1/message24344/pg1

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:56 pm

all I can say about that is ttf i'm here instead of there ! Mad

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:02 pm

I've seen it for years ... you can't reach people. And even if you did (in a similar site setting) you get trampled on. Twisted Evil

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:08 pm

you do ? well knock me over with a feather lol!

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:38 pm

sunbern Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:52 pm

hehehehe

**Jim** Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:38 pm

I'm just gonna sum this up ... due to the fact that no one knows who did what, starting with Gobekli Tepe and going on to the rest of the (later) picture in Anatolia (end of phase one of the religious elite), I'm content with a skeletal picture that may one day have hard data details. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter ... there is enough information to show what is needed.

This skeletal picture pops up again C 4000 BC with pre-Egypt and phase two of the religious elite, it kicks into overdrive at the time of the minor superwave C 3300 BC (and I have a picture for that too), goes on to Sumer and Egypt and then history as we know it. It's simple ... it doesn't cause a problem ... if we ever get more info we'll stick it in the picture, end of story.

This skeletal picture is a place saver ... and it works. It's really no different than the back and forth rhetoric regarding the mega-fauna extinction event ... they know something devastating happened - they just can't agree on a source. It would be nice to know for sure what it was ... but, at least we know it happened.

sunbern Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:15 am

sound guidelines ,certainly cant fault your methodology , will help to put flesh on the bones and try to move forward with you... we cover some good ground here and personally I have never once lost interest in our discussions ,keep it goin fella ... study

if you wanted to draw a line under what you have discovered so far I understand,if it's any help to you I think as the pages of history continue to turn one day you will be proved right...

Del. Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:33 am

We think we have heard it all with the religious crap, but this one takes the biscuit..... Rolling Eyes

http://theunexplained.tv/paranormal-podcasts/edition-215-june-lundgren

Oh boy.. d'oh

**Jim** Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:45 am

sunbern wrote:sound guidelines ,certainly cant fault your methodology , will help to put flesh on the bones and try to move forward with you... we cover some good ground here and personally I have never once lost interest in our discussions ,keep it goin fella ... if you wanted to draw a line under what you have discovered so far I understand,if it's any help to you I think as the pages of history continue to turn one day you will be proved right...

The only difference in the picture rests between classical teaching (being told the "answers") and constructivism (YOU stop and figure it out). It's like Del's podcast about June Lundgren ... what do you do with it? The auto-response is to do what we've been taught to do over the last 6000 years - shut up, listen and learn. Well, I "listened" - and I have questions that frankly go a little too deep and need more data. Some of the things she said are identifiable within a context of history, some in religion, some in possible mental illness (although I think folie a deux is a better explanation if she was "told" stuff).

Shared psychotic disorder or its more common synonym, folie à deux, is a rare clinical syndrome. Its characteristic feature is transmission of delusions from “inducer” (primary patient), who is the “originally” ill patient and suffers from a psychotic disorder, to another person who may share the inducer's delusions in entirety or in part. ...
Shared psychotic disorder is mostly observed among people who live in close proximity and in close relationships.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252781/

If you are being "taught things" from a "spiritual source" - there's your "close proximity" picture. How deep you fall into the hole depends on the individual.

Study Hall. - Page 9 The-best-teachers-300x216

Del. Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:38 am

You summed that up extremely well Jim, go to the top of the class.... cheers

Sponsored content